Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_effective_compiler_optionsA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the core behavior (resolving inheritance chain and returning merged options, including from node_modules/monorepo), but does not discuss side effects, error handling, or return format. This is adequate but not rich.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences that are front-loaded with purpose. The second sentence about eliminating hallucinations is slightly redundant but adds value by specifying which options are trustworthy. Overall concise and well-structured.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  No output schema exists, and no annotations. The description gives a high-level outcome but doesn't specify the return shape, error conditions, or how includeRaw affects output beyond schema. Sufficient for a straightforward tool but could be more complete given lack of output schema.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema covers 100% of parameters, so description doesn't need to compensate. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies given full schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states it resolves the full tsconfig.json inheritance chain and returns the final merged compiler options. It specifies the resource (tsconfig inheritance) and the output (final options), distinguishing it from sibling tools like resolve_module_alias or analyze_project_references.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  It implies usage when accurate effective compiler options are needed, highlighting that it eliminates hallucinations about strict mode, moduleResolution, paths, and target. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• analyze_project_referencesA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a read-only inspect/validate operation and explicitly states what it detects (missing/broken references causing silent build failures). However, it does not mention return format, potential side effects, or error behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences, front-loads the primary action, and adds a second sentence with the value proposition (detecting silent build failures). Every word contributes meaning; no filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the validation target, and the problem it solves. It does not describe the output shape, but this is a minor gap for a validation tool; overall it is contextually sufficient.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema—both say the parameter is the absolute path to the tsconfig.json. No extra semantic detail is provided about parameter format or constraints.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's specific function: inspecting a tsconfig.json's project references and validating composite:true. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on project references and their validation, which is not mentioned in any sibling names.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage in TypeScript monorepo build scenarios (detecting silent build failures), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools or provide exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• detect_config_overlapsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only static analysis behavior ('find', 'surface'), but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify files, what happens if the config paths are invalid, or whether it scans the entire project tree. The description gives some insight into the tool's purpose but lacks a clear statement of side effects or limitations.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a concise two-sentence structure. The first sentence front-loads the primary function, and the second sentence adds practical usage context. No redundant words or filler. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the core purpose and a common use case. It does not specify the return value format, but no output schema exists to compensate. It could be improved by stating what the tool returns, but overall it provides a reasonably complete picture for a simple analysis tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema already provides a complete description of the single parameter (configPaths: 'Two or more absolute paths to tsconfig.json files to compare'). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add additional parameter details. It does not, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function with specific verbs: 'find source files compiled by more than one tsconfig' and 'surface option conflicts.' It names concrete examples of conflicts (strict, module, target) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_effective_compiler_options or resolve_module_alias by focusing on overlapping compilation and option conflicts.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives a clear use case: 'Essential for monorepos where tsconfig.app.json and tsconfig.spec.json share the same src/ tree with incompatible settings.' This provides context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools. Thus it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar for a score of 4.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• explain_emission_structureA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It notably reveals that the tool does not run the compiler, a key behavioral trait, and discloses the output contents (JS, .d.ts, source map paths). It could add details about error handling or side effects but is substantially transparent.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences with no fluff, front-loaded with the action and followed by targeted use-case examples. Every word contributes.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The tool has one parameter and no output schema, but the description adequately conveys purpose, output elements, and use cases. It stops short of specifying the exact return format or how to interpret the tree, but is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description for configPath. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Build a virtual tree') and resource ('TypeScript emission structure'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on output file paths and compiler behavior without executing the compiler.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives explicit context for when the tool is useful ('predict where output files will land or debug rootDir/outDir misconfigurations'), but does not mention exclusions or explicitly contrast with alternatives, missing the top-tier 'when-not' guidance.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• resolve_module_aliasA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that resolution uses 'paths and baseUrl from the resolved tsconfig,' implying a read-only operation. It does not mention failure modes or return format, but the core behavior is transparent enough for a simple mapping tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences front-loaded with the primary action and a concrete use case. Every word earns its place, with no redundant language.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple two-parameter lookup tool, the description is sufficient to understand purpose and usage context. It lacks explicit return/error details, but given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, this is a minor gap.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema covers 100% of parameters with examples. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond noting that tsconfig paths/baseUrl are used for resolution; the schema already documents both parameters with illustrative examples.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses the verb 'Map' and clearly identifies the resource (TypeScript path alias) and the output (physical file location). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on compiler options, emission structure, and config overlaps.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides a clear use case: 'Useful when an agent needs to navigate to the actual file behind an import.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare against alternative sibling tools.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• simulate_module_resolutionA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adequately discloses the tool's behavior: it runs the resolution algorithm, returns the resolved path, and lists every candidate path tried and rejected. It could be more explicit about failure return behavior, but the core behavioral traits are clear.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and the second sentence adds value by explaining the tool's benefit. No wasted words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given there is no output schema, the description does explain the return value (resolved path plus rejected candidates) and the supported strategies. It lacks exact return structure details, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's role.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already structured. This matches the baseline expectation.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states it runs TypeScript's exact module resolution algorithm and returns the resolved file path plus all rejected candidate paths, distinguishing it from simpler alias-resolution tools. The action is specific and unambiguous.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear use context: to eliminate guesswork about why imports resolve or fail under Node16/NodeNext/Bundler strategies. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools like resolve_module_alias.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.